It seems to me that _any_ kind of music can be turned into "ruling class music": there's rock, but there's also homogenized corporate rock; there's rap, but there's also manipulative corporate rap; etc. By "ruling class music" do we a type of music that (a) doesn't encourage any critical thinking or doesn't allow people erotic freedom (where I'm using the word "erotic" in the broadest sense, a la Marcuse) but instead snobbish oneupmanship and the like or (b) manipulates people to be passive consumers? There are probably other ways. In any case, we need to clarify what we mean by "ruling class music." This is especially so since people can often use "ruling class music" for purposes for which it was not designed. The question is: is the music part of a popular culture that everyday people create (or with strong roots in everyday experience) or is it "Tin Pan Alley"-engineered popular culture? Even then, the latter can be transformed in its use by people. This whole discussion has driven me away from my project of using my long discussion with Gil Skillman over pen-l as the libretto for my first opera. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] <74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "It takes a busload of faith to get by." -- Lou Reed. It would also take a busload of crap to make Lou Reed's music into ruling class music.
